If the PlayStation 3 was more advanced, then why was the Xbox 360 outselling it?

[BijouMan]

The PlayStation 3 was a machine that had everything. When it first came out in 2006, it natively played three generations of games, had a Blu-ray player in the format's first year, a Super Audio CD player, wireless networking, HDMI, free online gaming, and even card slots to view your camera pictures. The Xbox 360, on the other hand, didn't have any of that stuff. It was limited to DVD meaning while a PS3 game could be up to 50 GB, an Xbox 360 game could only be up to 8.5 GB. It also could only play less than a quarter of the games from the previous generation, and it wasn't exactly the most reliable machine. And yet, it was significantly outselling the PS3. How could this have been? The PS3 would catch up to the Xbox 360 but it was only after Sony decided to strip the PS3 of some of the features that made it so great.

[jconsolmagno]

Price.

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Originally Posted by jconsolmagno

Price.

Was about to say, it basically came down to the price of the beefy thing as to why Xbox outsold it at the time.

[Talal86]

Xbox Live
“Cool" factor
Better 3rd party ports

[MOONPHASE]

Xbox 360 did come out 1st. And by the time PS3 came out, Xbox 360 already was starting to get a variety of titles when it came out a year later making it a little too late. Europe afterall didn’t get PS3 until March after everywhere had it for several months.

When PS3 launched it didn’t really have a groundbreaking title. Like Xbox 360 had Call Of Duty 2 which became practically the if you had a Xbox 360 at launch, you most likely had that game.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

Xbox 360 did come out 1st. And by the time PS3 came out, Xbox 360 already was starting to get a variety of titles when it came out a year later making it a little too late. Europe afterall didn’t get PS3 until March after everywhere had it for several months.

When PS3 launched it didn’t really have a groundbreaking title. Like Xbox 360 had Call Of Duty 2 which became practically the if you had a Xbox 360 at launch, you most likely had that game.

But isn't 50 GB better than 8.5 GB? Xbox 360 games often had to be split across more than one disc but not a single PS3 game ever had to be on more than one disc. And while the PS3 had a Blu-ray player built in, the Xbox 360 could play the competing HD DVD, except you had to buy an external drive, and Blu-ray won anyway. Therefore, no games were shipped on HD DVDs (30 GB). Also, the Xbox 360 was infamously unreliable, with a large percentage of consoles suffering internal hardware problems causing them to throw a core digital error indicated by three red lights around the power button.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

The PlayStation 3 was a machine that had everything. When it first came out in 2006, it natively played three generations of games, had a Blu-ray player in the format's first year, a Super Audio CD player, wireless networking, HDMI, free online gaming, and even card slots to view your camera pictures. The Xbox 360, on the other hand, didn't have any of that stuff. It was limited to DVD meaning while a PS3 game could be up to 50 GB, an Xbox 360 game could only be up to 8.5 GB. It also could only play less than a quarter of the games from the previous generation, and it wasn't exactly the most reliable machine. And yet, it was significantly outselling the PS3. How could this have been? The PS3 would catch up to the Xbox 360 but it was only after Sony decided to strip the PS3 of some of the features that made it so great.

Simple the APU chip inside the PS3 was a ***** to program for. Its why almost all 3rd party titles ran 100x better on the Xbox 360.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

But isn't 50 GB better than 8.5 GB? Xbox 360 games often had to be split across more than one disc but not a single PS3 game ever had to be on more than one disc. Also, the Xbox 360 was infamously unreliable, with a large percentage of consoles suffering internal hardware problems causing them to throw a core digital error indicated by three red lights around the power button.

There was Borderlands 2 GOTY Edition but the 2nd disc from what I understand was just adding the DLC. Not sure why that couldn’t have been just a Update file instead of being a disc. I’m not going to count something like that Metal Gear Solid Collection or the Batman Arkham Collection since those are multiple games.

Early PS3 models had the Yellow Light Of Death as people called it. I should know since I went through 3 or 4 PS3s because of it.

Yes more GBs on the disc is better but the average person doesn’t really care about that.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

There was Borderlands 2 GOTY Edition but the 2nd disc from what I understand was just adding the DLC. Not sure why that couldn’t have been just a Update file instead of being a disc. I’m not going to count something like that Metal Gear Solid Collection or the Batman Arkham Collection since those are multiple games.

Early PS3 models had the Yellow Light Of Death as people called it. I should know since I went through 3 or 4 PS3s because of it.

Yes more GBs on the disc is better but the average person doesn’t really care about that.

Microsoft seems to be lagging behind on discs used to distribute software. This is still the case today. While Sony has moved on to BD-66 and BD-100 discs for the PlayStation 5, Microsoft still uses BD-25 and BD-50 discs, even though the Xbox Series X is capable of reading BD-66 and BD-100 discs. It doesn't matter how big the game is or even if the disc is only usable on the Xbox Series X.

Also, for every PS3 that broke, four Xbox 360s broke. Shipping trucks were packed full of broken Xbox 360s. Thankfully, there are now ways to dramatically increase the reliability of the original PS3, and there isn't anything about the original Xbox 360 that makes it worth buying over some of the later Xbox 360 models.

[Modren]

In addition to the price, a lot of games just weren't as good on PS3 as they were on 360. The PS3's architecture was really tricky to develop for, and since game budgets were ballooning at the time and the 360 was outselling the PS3 for much of its life, there often wasn't time or desire to take full advantage of the PS3's power in multiplatform titles. Multiplatform games on PS3 often ran and looked appreciably worse than the 360 versions, even if PS3 exclusive titles could more than match the best the 360 had to offer. A really egregious example is Bayonetta, where the PS3 version is running at literally half the speed as the 360 with worse textures to boot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UHuUM4k3c

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by Modren

In addition to the price, a lot of games just weren't as good on PS3 as they were on 360. The PS3's architecture was really tricky to develop for, and since game budgets were ballooning at the time and the 360 was outselling the PS3 for much of its life, there often wasn't time or desire to take full advantage of the PS3's power in multiplatform titles. Multiplatform games on PS3 often ran and looked appreciably worse than the 360 versions, even if PS3 exclusive titles could more than match the best the 360 had to offer. A really egregious example is Bayonetta, where the PS3 version is running at literally half the speed as the 360 with worse textures to boot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UHuUM4k3c

But the difference wasn't bad enough to make the game unplayable.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

But the difference wasn't bad enough to make the game unplayable.

In Bayonetta's case at least, it kinda was. And even if the games weren't unplayable, who would want to buy a worse version on purpose if they had a better option already available?

[MOONPHASE]

They did put out updates to the PS3 version of Bayonetta to improve it. But I think PlatinumGames was too new to handle such a game at the time since they were still a new company and the PS3 was still pretty new as well. Like if you look at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, they did a much better job on that on PS3.

[BijouMan]

Then there was Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots which was on a BD-50 disc but didn't come out until Sony removed features from new PS3s.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Simple the APU chip inside the PS3 was a ***** to program for. Its why some 3rd party titles ran a bit better on the Xbox 360.

FTFY. I know I have a bias for games I care about, but I also know exaggeration when I see it.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Musashi

FTFY. I know I have a bias for games I care about, but I also know exaggeration when I see it.

Really then please by all means educate. While you do ill leave this here

Earlier this week, Shaun Himmerick, executive producer for "Wheelman" and employee at Midway, told the hosts of the "This Xbox Life" podcast that developing for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 couldn't be any different.

"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.

"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.

FROM THE CEO OF SONY

I looked for some Sony supporters and found the best source of them all: Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment. He can explain this and settle this once and for all, right? Think again.

In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official PlayStation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

Huh? But his explanation didn't end there.

"So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for," Hirai continued, "and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."

A report in the Dr. Dobb's Journal tested the development process of the PlayStation 3 and found that Sony's console is "difficult to program for." The report's authors went on to explain that "software that exploits the Cell's potential requires a development effort significantly greater than traditional platforms."

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

They did put out updates to the PS3 version of Bayonetta to improve it. But I think PlatinumGames was too new to handle such a game at the time since they were still a new company and the PS3 was still pretty new as well. Like if you look at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, they did a much better job on that on PS3.

the ps3 was the lead platform for Metal Gear Rising, maybe it's a Kojima thing. most multiplatforms were developed for the 360 and then get ported to the ps3

on top of my head, another example of a multiplatform better on ps3 was Final Fantasy 13, which was also developed for the ps3 originally

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Really then please by all means educate. While you do ill leave this here



FROM THE CEO OF SONY

Um, nice red herrings? I never denied there were problems with PS3 development. What I said was that claims that "almost all" multiplat games ran "100x better" on the 360 was an exaggeration. If you can't show me a multitude of games that run at 60 fps on a 360 but less than 1 fps on a PS3, the claim of "100x better" is patently false. Fact is, by around 2010-11, there were many games that were running better on PS3.

[supersix4]

Price... Sony overplayed their hand with the PS2 success and along with the blu-ray player overpriced the market

Theres a reason Wii was doing so well vs. even the 360 launch (499/599) let alone the ps3

if they'd all been priced 249 Wii woulda never had the lead for the time it did.

Originally Posted by R3P0

Really then please by all means educate. While you do ill leave this here



FROM THE CEO OF SONY

I wouldn't say any of those directly related to outselling I mean maybe ruined the devs. lives but pretty much all the major big titles of the era were on both consoles so from a consumer perspective it really appears to be price related from the jump

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Um, nice red herrings? I never denied there were problems with PS3 development. What I said was that claims that "almost all" multiplat games ran "100x better" on the 360 was an exaggeration. If you can't show me a multitude of games that run at 60 fps on a 360 but less than 1 fps on a PS3, the claim of "100x better" is patently false. Fact is, by around 2010-11, there were many games that were running better on PS3.

Skyrim says Hi